Research School Network: Grappling with Collaborative Learning The EEF identify Collaborative learning as having high potential, and yet many teachers harbour concerns over its use.

Co-operative learning is one of the most widespread and fruitful areas of theory, research and practice in education (Johnson team al, 2000), with is roots based in early psychological thinking (i.e. Vygotsky, 1978 and Piaget, 1928). Yet it is also one of the most commonly avoided, disliked and reluctantly undertaken practice in many active practitioners classrooms (Gillies and Boyle, 2010), and I include myself in this category.
Despite such concerns regarding group work, empirical and descriptive research has indicated that (when done correctly) it can have significant positive impacts of student progress and achievement. The EEF toolkit suggests that effective collaborative learning can lead to 5 months additional progress, although this comes with the caveat that behind this average is significant variation depending on the success with which collaborative or cooperative learning is implemented. Johnson et al (2000) in fact identify 900 studies validating the effectiveness of cooperative learning versus individualistic efforts, and also note that over the past three decades the use of group work has experienced broad dissemination through teacher preparation programmes.

In any classroom pupils will be drawn together for many purposes, and thus are given the environment and framework within which they can experience and succeed with collaborative learning (Blatchford and Kutnick, 2003). However it should be made clear that there is more too collaborative learning than simply sitting students in groups and asking them to work together. Doing so is likely to only emphasis the concerns and doubts teachers regarding group work. Lewis and Cowie (1993) suggest that teachers fear the potential loss of control, increased disruption, off task behaviour and time consuming nature of group work, while also expressing concerns regarding the nature of some students to coast while the brighter students take the strain and subsequently creating challenges for effective assessment. These concerns likely stem from the fact that much collaborative learning conducted and observed in classrooms is often of low quality (Blatchford and Kutnick, 2003), and as a result teachers negatively value group work which is then reflected in students perceptions and effort and engagement.

In their avocation of group working Blatchford and Kutnick (2003) identify a series of evidence supported considerations when planning group work to maximise the effectiveness of collaborative learning. 

1. Group size:
Research indicates that smaller group sizes are preferable, especially with younger children, as they allow for more talk per member (Hall, 2002). Hall notes that various studies suggest groups of 4, however this is not a steadfast rule with Blatchford and Kutnick arguing that the size needs to be considered in the context of age/​experience of pupils and the topic of study. While larger groups may allow more work to be completed and provide a greater range of experience, some research does suggest that groups of 6+ students may struggle to work independently without adult guidance.

2. Group Composition:
Blatchford and Kutnick observed, perhaps surprisingly, that group work was predominantly structured with same-ability level students within groups. They raise the obvious concerns about how this may disadvantage low starting point students, who are unlikely to have the cognitive insight to challenge others ideas or elaborate on their own thinking, but also acknowledge the difficulties in regards to assessment and work load of mixed ability groups.

3. Group stability:
Group work can usually be ad-hoc and thus lack consistency. Hall advocates that groups should exist for a minimum of 4 – 8 weeks, as constant group changes can cause pupil to struggle overcome insecurities and conflict and prevent the necessary build-up of trust, sensitivity and respect for group work to be successful. This has classroom implications, where group work is not necessarily an every lesson occurrence and as such groups may often be chosen at random and change from one collaborative opportunity to the other.

4. Training:
As Andy Tharby discusses in his blog students must be trained in how to work collaboratively. Andy refers to a set of collaborative learning skills that teachers want their students to master over a year, which will allow them to effectively discuss debate and work together. It is important that such collaborative skills are embedded into the curriculum rather than as a bolt on.

5. Teacher Role:
Blatchford and Kutnick advocate that all group work lessons should include a briefing and debriefing to enhance student reflection and help develop metacognitive group work skills. They suggest that the teacher’s role should be to act as a guide, monitoring student work (intervening where necessary) and prompting contribution rather than be ​“a sage on the stage”.

The research evidence in support of cooperative learning is very strong, and there is no denying that empirical evidence supports its use in the classroom. However the variance within the potential gains indicates that there are many pitfalls which must be avoided if cooperative learning is to be successful. The above considerations are just a starting point for any planning.